2014 Volkswagen CC 2.0T R-Line

The Dapper Old Dog

Long before the 2014 Volkswagen CC 2.0T R-Line, something happened. Back when it wore a Passat CC badge, when the "four-door coupe" craze was just going viral, I accepted a lunch invitation. The hippest, most dapper Passat ever to arrive in the U.S. had just been delivered to our office on L.A.'s Miracle Mile. One eager staffer grabbed the key fob from our lockbox while another screamed "shotgun," so I, a believer in the Joyriding Code of Conduct, accepted my place on the back bench.

I opened the passenger-side door, aimed my rear end toward the surprisingly gaping entrance, lifted my left leg past the sill, and then swiftly hit the side of my head on the CC's fashion-forward roof. Obscenities – and sunglasses -- shot from my face. I needed an ice pack, not a Big Mac. Just like that, I vowed to never sit in its back seat again. And that's most of what I remember of the 2009 Volkswagen Passat CC.

Fast-forward nearly six years and you'll notice minimal changes to the CC. It has a shorter name and dons a refreshed physique, the latter of which is most recognizable in this Candy White R-Line trim. Much like another CC, Mrs. Cindy Crawford (sorry, Kim Reynolds, not Charlie Chaplin), the Volkswagen still looks as striking as ever.

In Los Angeles, the CC is somewhat of a rare bird compared to its ubiquitous Passat and Jetta siblings. With its terse list of "sport" elements -- 18-inch alloys wrapped in 235/40R-18 all-season Continentals, sculpted sills, and a more louvered front valance housing projector-style fog lamps -- the sexily clad sedan intrigued passersby galore.Most of those stares occurred at dusk. Its standard bi-xenon headlamps with LED strips, plus the LED taillamps at the rear, screamed "cool," as if they were ripped from a "Tron" conveyance. Nifty low-speed corner illumination (the interior housings swivel 15 degrees), another standard feature, made trots through badly lit parking lots a breeze.

Unlike the racy exterior, the cabin humbly whispers "classy." It's covered in a black faux hide called V-Tex, and the simplicity of the space and its well-organized arrangement of pertinent controls (auto climate control, auto headlights, cruise control, central storage bin) radiate an almost Audi-esque lavishness. Titanium silver accents further the luxurious feel, as do the cushy 12-way heated power seats and analog clock. Finding my way around the RNS 315 touch-screen navigation's menus and Bluetooth device connectivity couldn't have been simpler.But the CC represents much more than just dapper looks and soft-touch bits. Loads of VW practicalities were present. Multiple 12-volt outlets situated within passengers' arms' reach ensure devices never die, and rear-seat air conditioning vents keep passengers comfortable. Four cupholders successfully corralled all of our bottled liquids, and the 13.2-cubic-foot trunk has cargo organizers that came in handy when restocking the pantry. The 60/40 bench has a pass-through for larger items.Unfortunately, our initial outings were marred with frustration. At slower speeds, particularly when rolling off from a stoplight, the CC's hair-trigger throttle and sluggish six-speed dual-clutch gearbox required significant sensory adjustments.Volkswagen's wet-clutch DSG has evolved quite nicely since the days of our long-term 2011 Jetta TDI, yet it continued to stumble in its efforts to smoothly apply the 2.0-liter's turbo's 200 hp, as if it were second-guessing its gear selection. Apologies to my passengers, who occasionally were real-life bobbleheads. It was only after miles of driving that my foot was able to compensate for the powertrain's ways.

Said compensation went out the door as soon as the road curved. Calling upon the CC's 207 lb-ft had the tachometer's needle pretending it belonged to a Porsche PDK, jumping and sinking as subsequent gears got engaged and disengaged hastily and nearly imperceptibly. At a smidge more than 3400 pounds, the CC arrived 60 mph from a standstill in 6.7 seconds; wrung out, it ran the quarter mile in 15.1 seconds while speeding along at 93.2 mph. It jogged around our figure-eight course in 27 seconds flat at an average 0.64 g. Not rocket ship stats, but still, the CC's level of sportiness is decent.Here's why: Dipping the steering wheel off center invited a progressive tug. The electro-mechanical setup is hardly communicative, but it stays nicely weighted thanks to the variable-speed-assist function. Following the adhesion of ContiProContacts with asphalt, the longish 189-inch laser-sealed body rolled and pitched like a dinghy on swells. But once its mass got righted by the tag team of struts and multi-link underpinnings, consistent quick clips corner after corner, paddle flap after paddle flap, arrived effortlessly. As associate editor Benson Kong said, noting the CC's love for inducing wheelspin and straight line speed: "It feels like it has more power than it's rated."The old dog with a new title, luxurious innards, Botoxed seductiveness, and a Golf-like peppiness sipped fuel judiciously (I saw 30-plus mpg trip averages and 400-mile ranges. Granted, the 18.5-gallon tank helped a bit). It was equipped with a long list of amenities, and held its own on mildly twisty paths. The Volkswagen CC is an entry-level luxury sedan that has many more memorable assets than annoying gripes, namely that awkward rear-seat ingress height. I broke my vow and jumped in the back seat without a head thud or headache, by the way.

Overall IMHO the best car for its class and the cost. Drives smooth, accelerates no worse than V6 with only 4 cylinders while getting 22-31 MPG. Interior and exterior design is phenomenal and trunk space is more than enough. Even Audi's and BMW's interior look cheesy designed like Toyota Corolla's compared to my CC. The middle part of backseat folds so I can put snowboards or hockey sticks in there without taking down seats. Every single lady I drove in it complimented my CC (and guys to of course). Transmission is smooth, shocks are perfectly balanced: does not have a boat Buick/ Cadi feeling but still really comfortable. Made a trip all the way to Mississippi from Cali and back without any issues. I really do not have enjoyment driving a car but this car makes me actually enjoying it

I don't know why people complain about interior not being roomy, I am 6'5 and fit perfectly and comfortable in this car. If you can't fit in this car than you really need to loose some weight or buy your self ChevyTahoe.

The review was rigged to favor the Buick, over the VW. i have a VW CC with the 2.0 turbo. Its engine and transmission are super smooth. The throttle is not jumpy. The DSG transmission is excellent. The VW power train is much smoother than our toyota rav4 auto V6. Its seems that the VW was marked down because of its phone connection, which seems to be a minor fault. Motor Trend got it wrong

Got my 2013 CC V6 back in April of 2012. Love the car - a lot of fun to drive.

Never heard of the CC before seeing one on display in a local mall. Style hits the right balance. Nice. A bit subtle. Kind of sneaks up on folk.

My kids are grown, so I do not need a family car. Bit awkward to get in the back? Deal with it. Not my priority. Once you are in, the car is quite comfortable. Exactly suits my priorities.

I enjoy driving. My old Honda Accord is a nice driver's car. The CC is something else altogether. When I first got the car, found I *really* had to watch my speed. Compared to my Honda, the CC does not feel "fast" until far past 100mph. The car accelerates strongly up to 130mph, and is limited to that speed.

In the first month, drove to the Grand Canyon. Driving across the Mojave Desert, noticed the antenna on the car ahead was completely laid over to the side. Massive cross wind. Cars around me bobbling. In the CC there was none of that nonsense. They did the aerodynamics right.

Bit later was passing a line of campers, on an uphill curve. Felt quite unhurried. As I passed the last of the campers, glanced down ... and found that I was doing 120mph. Right. I *really* need to watch speed.

A year later, drove the car across country from California to Chicago, and back, in a week. The suspension on the CC is firm. If you are looking solely for a soft, comfortable cruiser, this is not your car. Suits me, even on the long trips.

Oddly, the torque of the VR6 engine makes more of a difference than I expected. In Chicago traffic when in entirely the wrong lane, touch the throttle, and found I could easily make the needed lane changes, as everyone was now behind. Rather nice to gracefully curve through inner city traffic. :)

Downsides? The VR6 does burn more gas - especially if you get a bit carried away. The 6-speed automatic transmission is a bit dumb, at times. (Are other cars better?) I was accustomed to manual transmissions, so the automatic is not just not as smart as a human. (Then again, the automatic is preferable in heavy traffic.) The front grill on the 2013 (and later) is bit ... clunky. Looking at the current model year CC lineup, I suspect the VW/America folk are a bit clueless as to the market.

The CC is a borderline supercar, that can carry four adults in comfort, at a reasonable price.

Not everyone share good taste when it comes to vehicles. the cc has beautiful design lines,luxury,great power,sporty handling,owesome acceleration,oh and did I mentioned economy 31+ mpg. and an aire of sophestication. I havent receiced so many complements as I have driving the cc,including women, If you dont like any of these attributes of the cc youre better off driving your old pick up truck as it would serve as a antonym to the cc. As for those who havent owned one,save your ingnorant commments, because if your owned one, you d be overwhelmed with joy like moi.

my cc is a 2010, 2.0 in white gold metallic (beige/black interior) i couldn't be happier. the most comfortable car i've owned. it's been trouble free unlike my last mercedes e-class ('96) strangers often comment on its beauty. i added an invisible bra when first purchased...... it looks as good today as when new.

Very nice looking car, but performance does not match the good looks. 27 second figure eight is pretty disappointing. That said, those who buy it are probably not going to be taking it on a track, and one can also option for the v6 if more speed is required. Also, VW never said it is a sport coupe, though it may have that appearance.

If the author hit his head getting in the back of a CC he probably decapitated himself getting in the back of a Mercedes CLS. The backseat of the CC is lower than the front seats to avoid precisely that.

For no more money than a stripper 4-cylinder Audi A4, you can buy a V-6 powered AWD CC loaded with everything that is quick as can be. If you're into "prestige," buy the Audi, but if you want a first-rate machine, buy the loaded CC.

Usually "four door coupes" are a pretty crappy value when compared to there regular sedan counterparts but the CC isn't too bad. Comparably equipped the Passat is about $27,900 and the CC is $33,600 ($32,500 with a manual).

That's not too bad and you do get the 2.0 and the DSG along with a couple of things that don't come on the Passat like Rain sensing wipers and the special headlights. Plus of course it drives better than the regular Passat.

Have a 2012 2.0t and love it, the DSG can be a bitch to get used to. Only other problems is how mechanical the whole car sounds in general and a surprising amount of wind noise at highway speeds. Wish they had kept the old grill for the updated CC and just dropped in DRLs. The taillights also switched from G35-like to a much better fitting design.

Had this car for about a week while the owner was out of town. Loved it...the speed and handling...hell the acceleration...definitely makes more power than advertised. I'll take an all-black one, no chrome.

"Garbage VW reliability" may be your opinion, but not my experience. I bought two VW's, a Jetta in 1996, and a Golf in 2010, and experienced a great pair of cars and driving experiences with no more than standard, predictable repairs, etc. I'd put VW in my "always check" for another car purchase. EVERY car maker gets "bad reviews" from someone...except maybe for the old Yugo, which got bad reviews from EVERYone; LOL.

@50YearSubscriber If it has the FTI 2 liter in it, it will cost $700 to chip it for HP bump to 270 and Torque increase to 290 ft lbs. Plus it's adjustable so you can get the better gas mileage by turning down the boost. If it's the TSI engine such gains will not be available.

@Norm V.:Not sure we Consumer Report you are referring to (probably initial quality), but I prefer JD powers long term reliability study in order to get a good idea of an automakers real numbers over three years. Initial quality does not equal reliability. On that report, Ford is consistently at the industry average. VW, on the other hand, was 28th worst among 33 listed automakers. VW is always at or near the bottom. Ford is 12th in 33 buyers. You can see these stats by simply googling "JD powers long term reliability study".

@sooththetruth APR's stage 1 pumps the HP up to 253 and torque to 270 ft-lb. That's for the TSI. Runs no one needs more power than that, and it increases gas mileage by 2 mpg in normal driving. That said, it may void your warranty.

You are incorrect in that the chipped TSI as the one on the CC will give you a higher HP and torque rating...If you look on the APR website, a stage 2 chip will give 273 hp and 300 tq. The CC only came with the TSI 2.0 which is an updated version of the FSI version found on the mkv GTI like mine is....I've had mine chipped since it had 300 miles on it and i'll tell you...the diff is night and day! And still get 31 mpg as long as i can control my right foot! My car now has 138 thousand trouble free miles! ;-)

@adamlink : I guess this is decided by whatever definition one has for "quality". If it is reliability, VW certainly will not fit your definition. If it is quality of materials and fit and finish, I would say VW certainly does better than the hard plastics in Toyota.

@renata25 THat is correct JD. power studies long term vehicle reliability by consulting owners who have owned the vehicle for three or more years. They also study initial quality but that is different from Long term reliability. Long term reliability is the one you want to be concerned about since the dealer fixes the initial quibbles anyways.

@renata25 Personally, I find TrueDelta to be the most accurate. But they often don't have a ton of data for each car.

I don't trust JD Powers for a couple of reasons, partly because they base there long term reliability study off of the initial quality study results (which has some big issues on it's own) rather than historical reliability data plus data collected from a cars 3rd year or ownership (not 3 years, third year) which means that the models you get the info from are old and sometimes aren't even in production anymore.

Oh, and they don't weigh problems the way you think they would. They have two types of "problems". One, is something that isn't working right. Something that is actually faulty that needs to be fixed. The other, is just something the owner doesn't like about the car. So that means that anything that is broken is given equal weight in how reliable a certain car is. A broken mirror is the same as a bad engine.